Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.136–167

Register in historical linguistics

| Uppsala University
Merja Kytö is Professor of English Language at Uppsala University. In this article, she provides a detailed accounting of the role of register in research on the historical development of language. Her substantial body of work has focused on both the historical development of specific registers, as well as how historical change has been mediated by register. Her research has encompassed a range of time periods (from Early Modern English to the 19th century) and registers (for example, depositions, Salem witchcraft records, and dialogues). Her many edited collections have brought historical linguists together into comprehensive and rigorous volumes, including the Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics (Kytö & Pahta 2016, Cambridge University Press), English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles (Rissanen, Kytö, & Heikkonen 1997, De Gruyter), and Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence (Taavitsainen, Kytö, Claridge, & Smith 2014, Cambridge University Press). She has been a key contributor to the development of principled historical corpora, such as the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts project, which represents a range of registers from Old and Middle English to Early Modern English. Merja Kytö has long been a leader in demonstrating how systematic attention to register can result in rich profiles of historical development, and in addressing the inherent challenges involved in utilizing historical documents for linguistic research.
Keywords: language change, historical corpora, genre, variationist, multi-dimensional analysis, sociolinguistics, grammaticalization, colloquialization, standardization
Article outline
  • 1.How is register conceptualized in historical linguistics?
  • 2.How does register relate to the research goals within historical linguistics?
  • 3.What are the major methodological approaches that are used to analyze or account for register in historical linguistics?
  • 4.What does a typical register study look like in historical linguistics?
  • 5.What are the most promising areas of future register research in historical linguistics?
  • Corpora and other electronic resources
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 26 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18011.kyt
References (114)
Corpora and other electronic resources
ARCHER, see A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers
B-Brown-1931 Corpus
BLOB-1931 Corpus
British National Corpus (BNC)
British National Corpus 2014 (BNC2014)
Brown Corpus (The Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English)
Cambridge International Corpus
Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC)
Corpus of Early English Medical Writing (CEEM)
Corpus of Early Ontario English (CONTE)
A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED)
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA)
Corpus of Late Modern English Texts Extended Version (CLMETEV)
A Corpus of Nineteenth-century English (CONCE)
Corpus of Oz Early English (COOEE)
Early English Books Online (EEBO)
Google Books
Helsinki Corpus (Helsinki Corpus of English Texts)
International Corpus of English Great Britain (ICE-GB)
Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (LOB)
Literature Online (LION)
Old Bailey Corpus (OBC)
A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER)
Spoken BNC2014
Zurich Newspaper English (ZEN)
References
Aarts, B. (1992). Small clauses in English: The non-verbal types. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agha, A. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication, 231, 231–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Language and social relations (Studies in the Social Life and Cultural Foundations of Language 24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, D. (1992). The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics, 131, 337–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 2(3), 333–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986 /1953). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ball, C. N. (1994). Automated text analysis: Cautionary tales. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 91, 295–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. In H.-J. Diller & M. Görlach (Eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres (pp. 89–109). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
(2003). Variation among university spoken and written genres: A new multi-dimensional analysis. In P. Lestyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus analysis. Language structure and language use (pp. 47–70). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(2012). Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Burges, J. (2000). Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics, 28(1), 21–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics – Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J., Gray, B., Oppliger, R., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2016). Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. In M. Kytö & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp. 351–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language, 65(3), 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In M. Rissanen, O. Ihalainen, T. Nevalainen & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics (pp. 688–704). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In T. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (pp. 253–275). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
(2001). Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 66–83). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(2), 104–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2007). When “wee wretched words” wield weight: The impact of verbal particles on transitivity. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, Finland, 19–20 May 2006 (pp. 41–54). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2000). Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In A. Bergs & L. J. Brinton (Eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook (Vol.11, 237–253). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diemer, S. (2014). Closing the gap – the development of verb-particle combinations in English between 1810 & 1960. In Y. Iyeiri & J. Smith (Eds.), Studies in Middle and Modern English: Historical change (pp. 41–57). Osaka: Osaka Books.Google Scholar
Diller, H.-J. (2001). Genre in linguistic and related discourses. In H.-J. Diller & M. Görlach (Eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres (pp. 3–43). Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Dollinger, S. (2006). Oh Canada! Towards the Corpus of Early Ontario English. In A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (Eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 55) (pp. 7–25). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). New-dialect formation in Canada: Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elias, N. (1976 /1939). Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation: Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen (21 vols, 4th ed.). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. [The civilizing process: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations (revised edition); translated by E. Jephcott with some notes and corrections by the author; edited by E. Dunning, J. Goudsblom & S. Mennell. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, 2000].Google Scholar
Ellegård, H. A. (1953). The auxiliary do. The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English 2). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fowler, A. (1982). Kinds of literature: An introduction to the theory of genres and modes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fritz, C. (2007). From early English in Australia to Australian English 1788–1900. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Geisler, G. (2002). Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: A multi-dimensional comparison. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 249–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Gender-based variation in nineteenth-century English letter-writing. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 87–106). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. (2004). Text types and the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features (pp. 162–178). London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, R. J. (Eds.) (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, S., Roth, K. S., & Kleinberger, U. (Eds.) (2014). Musterwandel – Sortenwandel: Aktuelle Tendenzen der diachronen Text(sorten)linguistik. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, R. (1994). Phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: Notes on lexis and style. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in Early Modern English (pp. 129–140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, A., & Kytö, M. (2017). The linguistic landscapes of Swedish heritage cookbooks in the American midwest, 1895–2005. Studia Neophilologica, 89(2), 261–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Heritage Swedish, English, and textual space in rural communities of practice. In J. Heegård Petersen & K. Kühl (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Immigrant Languages in the Americas (WILA 8) (pp. 44–54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2011). Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, M. (2007). The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1764–1834. Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In A. Meurman-Solin & A. Nurmi (Eds.), Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1). Helsinki: University of Helsinki: Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English. See <[URL]>
Hundt, M. & Leech, G. (2012). “Small is beautiful”: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In T. Nevalainen & E. Traugott (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp. 175–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, M., & Mair, C. (1999). ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 41, 221–242; reprinted in D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), Corpus linguistics [Sage Benchmarks in Language and Linguistics 3: Varieties] (pp. 199–216). Los Angeles: Sage, 2012.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2015). Book review of Barbara Johnstone, Speaking Pittsburghese . The story of a dialect, 2013. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(4), 559–582.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., & Kopaczyk, J. (2013). Communities of practice as a locus of language change. In J. Kopaczyk & A. H. Jucker (Eds.), Communities of practice in the history of English (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabatek, J. (2018). Lingüística coseriana, lingüística histórica, tradiciones discursivas. Madrid & Frankfurt: Iberoamericana & Vervuert. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanisches Jahrbuch 361, 15–43 [English translation available: Language of immediacy – language of distance: Orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In C. Lange, B. Weber, & G. Wolf (Eds.), Communicative spaces – Variation, contact, and change: Papers in honour of Ursula Schaefer (pp. 441–473). Frankfurt: Lang, 2012].Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1991). Variation and diachrony, with early American English in focus: Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL (Bamberger Beiträge zur Englischen Sprachwissenschaft 28 / University of Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 28). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, M., Grund, P. J., & Walker, T. (2011). Testifying to language and life in Early Modern England . Including a CD-ROM containing An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions 1560–1760 (ETED). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M., & Pahta, P. (2012). Evidence from historical corpora up to the twentieth century. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp. 123–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M., & Smitterberg, S. (2015). Diachronic registers. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 330–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. B. (2009). Texts and text types in the history of German. In G. T. Horan (Ed.), Landmarks in the history of the German language (pp. 113–136). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published in 1990 as Institute for Research on Learning report 90–0013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (2007). New resources, or just better old ones? The holy grail of representativeness. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web (pp. 133–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., & Smith, N. (2005). Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research in the twentieth century: A prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal, 291, 83–98.Google Scholar
Lutzky, U. (2012). Discourse markers in Early Modern English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. (1997). Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In M. Ljung (Ed.), Corpus-based studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language and Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17) (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(2016). Audio recordings. In M. Kytö & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp. 146–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, P. (1990). The phrasal verb: Diachronic development in British and American English. Unpublishd PhD dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College (USA).Google Scholar
Marttila, V. (2014). Creating digital editions for corpus linguistics: The case of Potage Dyvers, a family of six Middle English recipe collections. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki. <[URL]>
McEnery, A., & Baker, H. (2017). Corpus linguistics and 17th-century prostitution: Computational linguistics and history. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
McIntosh, C. (1998). The evolution of English prose 1700–1900: Style, politeness, and print culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A. (1993). Variation and change in early Scottish prose. Studies based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 65). Helsinki: Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae.Google Scholar
(2007). Manual to the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence. Helsinki. <[URL]>
Meyerhoff, M. (2002). Communities of practice. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 526–548). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T., & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1989). A corpus of Early Modern Standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 90(1), 67–111.Google Scholar
(1993). Early Modern British English. In M. Rissanen, M. Kytö & M. Palander-Collin (Eds.) Early English in computer age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus (Topics in English Linguistics 11) (pp. 53–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003). Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Oxford English dictionary. 3rd ed. in progress: OED Online, March 2000–, J. A. Simpson (Ed.). <[URL]>
Pelli, M. G. (1976). Verb-particle combinations in American English: A study based on American plays from the end of the 18th century to the present. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1967). The uses of one in Old and Middle English (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 31). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
(1997). The pronominalization of one . In M. Rissanen, M. Kytö & K. Heikkonen (Eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies in long-term developments in English (pp. 87–143). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Corpora and the study of the history of English. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp. 197–220). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., & Heikkonen, K. (1997). English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, P. (2019). The English phrasal verb, 1650–present: History, stylistic drifts, and lexicalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1982). Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, C., & Hilpert, M. (2017). Colloquialization in journalistic writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(1), 101–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rydén, M. (1966). Relative constructions in early sixteenth century English: With special reference to Sir Thomas Elyot (Studia Anglica Upsaliensia 3). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Schendl, H. (1997). Morphological variation and change in Early Modern English: my/mine, thy/thine . In R. Hickey & S. Puppel (Eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling. A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday (pp. 179–191). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, E. (2005). The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Extracting data from historical material. In M. Kytö & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp. 181–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spasov, D. (1966). English phrasal verbs. Sofia: Naouka Izkoustvo.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (1997). Genre conventions: Personal affect in fiction and non-fiction in Early Modern English. In M. Rissanen, M. Kytö, & K. Heikkonen (Eds.), English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles (pp. 185–266). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Changing conventions of writing: The dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions. European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 139–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Genre dynamics in the history of English. In M. Kytö, & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp. 271–285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I., Kytö, M., Claridge, C., & Smith, J. (2014). English in the digital age: A general introduction. In I. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge, & J. Smith (Eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence (pp. 1–8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thim, S. (2006). Phrasal verbs in Late Middle and Early Modern English: Combinations with back, down, forth, out and up . In C. Dalton-Puffer, D. Kastovsky, N. Ritt, & H. Schendl (Eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000 (pp. 213–228). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012). Phrasal verbs. The English verb-particle construction and its history. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todorov, T. (1990). Genres in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). The state of English language studies: A linguistic perspective. In M. Thormählen (Ed.), English now: Papers from the 20th IAUPE Conference in Lund (pp. 199–225). Lund: Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
von Polenz, P. (1999). Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Vol. 3: 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–195). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werlich, E. (1982). A text grammar of English, 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Widlitzki, B., & Huber, M. (2016). Taboo language and swearing in 18th century and 19th century English. A diachronic study based on the Old Bailey Corpus. In M. J. López-Couso, B. Méndez-Naya, P. Núñez-Pertejo, & I. M. Palacios-Martínez (Eds.), Corpus linguistics on the move: Exploring and understanding English through corpora (pp. 313–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wild, K. (2010). Attitudes towards English usage in the Late Modern Period: The case of phrasal verbs. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1994). The place of genre in the corpus. In M. Kytö, M. Rissanen & S. Wright (Eds.), Corpora across the centuries (pp. 101–107). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, N. (2015a). Preposition stranding and prescriptivism in English from 1500 to 1900: A corpus-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2015b). ‘Have you ever written a diary or a journal?’ Diurnal prose and register variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 116(2), 449–474.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Yamada, Aaron
2024. A diachronic analysis of Spanish alg- series and n- series items in negated clauses. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Olivier, Marc, Christina Sevdali & Raffaella Folli
2023. Clitic climbing and restructuring in the history of French. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo
Pescuma, Valentina N., Dina Serova, Julia Lukassek, Antje Sauermann, Roland Schäfer, Aria Adli, Felix Bildhauer, Markus Egg, Kristina Hülk, Aine Ito, Stefanie Jannedy, Valia Kordoni, Milena Kuehnast, Silvia Kutscher, Robert Lange, Nico Lehmann, Mingya Liu, Beate Lütke, Katja Maquate, Christine Mooshammer, Vahid Mortezapour, Stefan Müller, Muriel Norde, Elizabeth Pankratz, Angela G. Patarroyo, Ana-Maria Pleşca, Camilo R. Ronderos, Stephanie Rotter, Uli Sauerland, Gohar Schnelle, Britta Schulte, Gediminas Schüppenhauer, Bianca Maria Sell, Stephanie Solt, Megumi Terada, Dimitra Tsiapou, Elisabeth Verhoeven, Melanie Weirich, Heike Wiese, Kathy Zaruba, Lars Erik Zeige, Anke Lüdeling & Pia Knoeferle
2023. Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Repo, Liina, Brett Hashimoto & Veronika Laippala
2023. In search of founding era registers: automatic modeling of registers from the corpus of Founding Era American English. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 38:4 ► pp. 1659 ff. DOI logo
Marko, Karoline, Margit Reitbauer & Georg Pickl
2022. Same person, different platform. Register Studies 4:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula, Tanja Säily & Jukka Suomela
2022. New methods for analysing diachronic suffix competition across registers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:4 ► pp. 506 ff. DOI logo
Goulart, Larissa, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples, Amanda Black, Aisha Shelton, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert & Stacey Wizner
2020. Linguistic Perspectives on Register. Annual Review of Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 97], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.